The idea has appeal because I think there is a lot of good a lawyer could do for the less fortunate but I'd never make any money at it. I'd never even repay my loans from it.

Thankfully I'm old enough to know that and know I want to retire in reasonable comfort.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” ~ John Rogers

Going to law school costs loads of money. From what I understand you will have a six figure debt. Even if you do get a job that pays well, you will still have that huge debt to pay off. Kiss your life good bye, you don't get to use your money and work long hours.

Unless becoming a lawyer has been your childhood passion, I would highly recommend avoiding the profession.

Well there is Ivy League law, and then there is hanging out near the traffic court hoping to snag a $40 client from another starving degeneate with a JD... type of law.

Does this mean that you are part of the latter group? And that's a genuine question, not intended to be disrespectful. I never knew it was that bad. The two lawyers I've had contact with in the last 5 years or so have been very respectable guys with good, positive attitudes who seemed to enjoy what they were doing and didn't seem to be hard up for work or hurting financially (nor did they seem stressed out - busy, but not stressed). They actually both seemed like pretty happy guys. And they weren't Ivy League by a long shot. One was a former police detective (probably ENTJ or a very book-capable ESTJ). He loved what he did and it showed. The other guy was a networker, so maybe he was "looking for a $40 client" to some extent, but he seemed happy with what he was doing.

Maybe I read too much into their demeanors, but I know that if I was extremely unhappy in a profession, it would show on my face and in my lack of enthusiasm. These guys didn't show signs of that.

And anyone who tells you there is a lot of respectable stuff in between is either a deluded sucker or a liar with an agenda.

I'm interested to know just how bad the non-Ivy Leaguers really have it. If they're making anywhere from 65k-150k, that might be "low income" relative to the Ivy Leaguers, but it's not chump change. 80-90% of the population aren't making that much. If it's more like 30-55k then, yeah, that would be rough after having gone through Lawe Skoole.

NTJ's are the only types that have ever made me feel emo.
ENP's are the only types that have ever made me feel like a sensor.

There are two great days in a person's life - the day we are born and the day we discover why. --William Barclay

There's some actual thought put into that argument and minor evidence presented to suggest they may have a case, as much as people go GRRR about the fact that it's related to black people, it's still something worth looking into.

We *DO* know that there are differences between gender and race. It's silly to believe otherwise. If someone gets pissed at me for saying that yeu'll notice there's virtually nil for top end black swimmers, I'd slap them for being idiots. It's not because I'm racist, it's because the genepool has bred them to have a higher muscle mass in their bodies and lower body fat, which means they weigh more for the same size, and they SINK in water, making it so that they need disproportionately more effort to just stay afloat, which in turn means spending more energy on trying to stay above water than on actually moving anywheres. That's not racist, that's genetics.

I don't see anything showing any predisposition towards blacks being less intelligent though; the last time someone made that argument, they claimed it was 'true' because "blacks have smaller brains". We've since learned 2 facts that kill that. First off, brain size has no relevance on intelligence. Second, blacks on average have a larger brain size, so even IF that were the case, it would prove the inverse instead.

While I agree with the basic reasoning the student had, I must point out they lack any evidence to support blacks being on average less intelligent. While it *MAY* be the case, it's an awfully big "maybe" we're looking at there, with no real proof to back it up.

The more compelling argument would be that, since blacks were oppressed for so long and forced to live in ghettos and such, there were two very major factors at work... they've been stuck forced to pick the strongest to survive; a form of natural selection where thieves and such were unfortunately the most likely to survive living in a slum. This obviously doesn't cover all areas, or all families, and anyone who's since broken out of that lifestyle will probably never fall back into it. But those in a slum environment generally have education issues (lack thereof for quality schooling), history of other family members who are likely to pass down traits, both genetically and through taught behaviour (most pickpockets and shoplifters are actually usually children... and usually taught to do so by their own parents).

Does this mean all blacks are like that? Uhm. NO. No it doesn't. Not in the slightest. It does mean, however, that those who are stuck in such situations, which unfortunately a large number of such were for quite some time, are more prone to these issues. Which in turn led to the assumption that blacks were prone to such (not all were), and the idea got spread around, which made it hard to climb out of the hole when yeur whole life everyone EXPECTS yeu to be a thief... eventually alot of people cave under that pressure. Or one small stupid mistake that would get brushed off for anyone else is shown as ZOMG LOOK PROOF and exaggerated beyond belief.

As much as some may hate to admit to it, there are still some portions of some cities where slums/ghettos are highly populated by certain races. Just like there are cases of trailer parks populated by white people who turn into scum, there are ghettos where blacks are the predominant population and get forced into the same situation.

If such lasts for enough generations, the worst of such will be selected to pass on their genes due to their ability to survive such an environment.

As such, we really need to work harder to clean up these crap areas of cities and such quickly, or the problem will just become self-perpetuating. A few generations isn't really long enough to ensure such though, nor is it enough to even remotely pretend that "zomg black people are generally less intelligent". Pft, that would take centuries of breeding out the smart ones. And the smart ones were generally smart enough to know better than to show themselves as smart, lest they be killed off, so I highly doubt that's the case.

That being said, the end point here is that there are things which could lead one to make a theory based on such evidence. This isn't something to cry "RACIST!" over. It's something to pose a counter argument and show evidence against.

After reading the email carefully, the student was more polite and cautious in their wording than most people on this very board are.

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances.

This doesn't sound like the words of someone with an axe to grind, it's someone who has stated that there is a possibility, it might not be accurate, and it could very well be wrong, but they don't automatically throw out the idea simply because it's under society's current politically correct beliefs to "just don't talk about such things".

I find it moreso sad that, anyone who even remotely touches any topic which may be even the slightest bit controversial, can be branded something they aren't. This individual did not appear even remotely racist, other than the fact that they were discussing a matter that just happened to be related to genetics.

If I had've taken one of their other statements, that 'Irish people are more likely to have red hair.', is that also racist? Hardly; it's an observation, with pretty strong evidence to support such due to genetics. (There's not many redheads around north america due to genetic cleansing a few hundred years ago and there just haven't been very many around here to restrengthen the gene pool for such) To take it further, we could state that "redheads are more likely to have a bad temper". This isn't always the case, but once again, there are genetic traits and upbringing which lead for such to more frequently than average be true. There's no "I HATE REDHEADS" or anything like that, nor attempting to single them out, it's just the fact that the few around here who DIDN'T get ethnically cleansed, happened to be the ones most likely to resist such and survive. One of those traits was likely fierce independence and strength to fight when needed, not just give up. Likely, very related to such, would've likely been an easy to rise temper as well.

Obviously that's not always the dominant genes, and people can learn to repress their basic behaviours; I know I have a pretty bad temper myself, but I've since trained myself to restrict certain forms of lashing out, or self-hatred because they have caused too much harm to risk being allowed to run free. Obviously it's not "just" in genetics, genes just give a higher chance is all.

So this brings us to the point on blacks.

Are they on average less intelligent than whites?

Pft who knows. I don't. I have no studies to show that, have known enough to not believe it really, I don't see any reason to see such. Then again, it could be that there is a very, very, very tiny IQ difference too, by like 1-2 points, that would go unnoticed by virtually everyone on day to day life too. Is it a possibility? I won't rule it out myself... I don't rule out anything. Anything's possible; god could be real. Maybe the universe was created by a giant banana that speaks a bastardized form of swahili. Doesn't mean it's very LIKELY... but it's a possibility, if an unlikely one. So yeah, I don't think it's all that good a chance of blacks being less intelligent due to genetics. I suppose it's a possibility, but probably not a very good one. Personally, I believe the vast majority of any appearance that may seem such is moreso due to living conditions; if yeu're stuck growing up in a subpar neighbourhood, yeu're less likely to do well in life. That has nothing to do with race, just some low end neighbourhoods, for whotever reason (including racism), there are occasionally ones with predominant racial numbers; ie - more blacks in a ghetto. Likely due to racism from years before that some families haven't managed to claw their way out from yet since it's an uphill battle.

Then again, blacks weren't allowed to read in the states for a very long time; it was illegal for them to be literate since the slave owners were scared of them, and any who got 'too smart' got killed off... so there may be a minor discrepancy too due to such cleansing. I can't totally rule it out, such tragedies stay with us for alot longer than they should... if tomorrow we fixed all racist/sexist/whoteverist problems in the world... 100 years from now we'd still be feeling a bit of the fallout from such. Turnaround times aren't instant sadly.

In any case... I just essentially said the same thing as the student's email. It's a possibility. It's not necessarily a likely one. But it's one which can't be totally ruled out just because it'll make people unhappy.

We can't go running off to be retards about this crap and crying "wolf!" everywheres at random. Yeu kill the message, and when yeu try to call someone who really IS a KKK member or something... people might just not believe yeu anymore.

The post that 01011010 linked is an example of when not to cry wolf. At first glance, it does look bad. After carefully reading it and thinking about it though, there's really nothing of substance there to complain about. The writer of the email didn't have malicious intent. They didn't harbour ill feelings. And while those aren't necessary for racism, they are the ones that need to be shut down hard and fast. The biggest problem, is that this individual didn't even show any solid belief on such - their wording is all filled with maybes and "I think it is at least possible" and "do not rule out the possibility". These aren't the words of someone convinced of their superiority, just someone putting thought into a discussion, like we have on here. I can't consider someone who has no grudge, no anger, no hatred, no reason to be upset, no solid belief, and not even a "Yes I believe this to be true", to be racist. At least not off that evidence; maybe they're a closest racist, and is just trying to cover their own butt. Who knows.

Which leads to the final point:

This was a very poor argument to show that 'I certainly believe lawyers are assholes, and I often wonder if anything is ever going to change when these same types are often obtaining positions of power.'

If anything, 01011010 has flat out stated she has a grudge against lawyers, which's more than the article she linked to did.

Of course, I agree with her honestly on that matter XD

There's alot of bad lawyers out there. With a saturation of too many of them in the field, only the ones who are most fierce and willing to do anything to win will succeed long term. And those're the assholes mainly. So yeah, there are a disproportionate number of asshole lawyers. They aren't all, but 'on average' there's more than there should be due to several factors.

But it's not being job-ism, with a hatred towards someone already with no reason why in relation to their direct individual self... or... well actually it was that time. Oh well.

It doesn't matter if they're right. If they can't proove they're right, then they're wrong. No matter how right they may be.

Going to law school costs loads of money. From what I understand you will have a six figure debt. Even if you do get a job that pays well, you will still have that huge debt to pay off. Kiss your life good bye, you don't get to use your money and work long hours.

Unless becoming a lawyer has been your childhood passion, I would highly recommend avoiding the profession.

I've also heard some horror stories about people not passing the bar exams after graduating law school. We had a couple of guys that left the PhD program with MAs and switched to patent law. They are now swimming in money, but they told some horror stories about people not being able to pass the bar exams after graduation and becoming suicidal. How does something like that even happen? This is just my opinion and I know nothing about law school other than what I've been told by others, but how the hell does someone pass law school and can't pass the bar after multiple attempts?

Does this mean that you are part of the latter group? And that's a genuine question, not intended to be disrespectful.

As I have stated in my original post, I currently have a decent job (albeit most likely a very temporary one) that I have obtained due to very specific background and abilities. Meaning, 90%+ of people with exactly the same legal experience and law school pedigree such as mine would have been turned down if they applied. I cannot go into the exact specifics as to what those things are, because that would mean I would have to reveal more personal info that I care to, so just take my word for it.

But for years after graduation, yes, I have been in the latter part of the group to one degree or another. And if don't do some serious contingency planning, I am very likely to return to it.

I never knew it was that bad. The two lawyers I've had contact with in the last 5 years or so have been very respectable guys with good, positive attitudes who seemed to enjoy what they were doing and didn't seem to be hard up for work or hurting financially (nor did they seem stressed out - busy, but not stressed). They actually both seemed like pretty happy guys. And they weren't Ivy League by a long shot. One was a former police detective (probably ENTJ or a very book-capable ESTJ). He loved what he did and it showed. The other guy was a networker, so maybe he was "looking for a $40 client" to some extent, but he seemed happy with what he was doing.

When did they graduate law school? That plays a factor because it is getting worse and worse for the recent grads by the year. The older grads are able to survive better than the younger guys because they have an established base of experience and connections which they got when the market wasn't as horrendous, but nonetheless, the old guys are feeling the hurt too. There are new law schools being accredited every year, flooding new JDs to the market, yet the market remains stagnant at best - in fact, some of the lower end attorney work such as electronic discovery is currently being outsourced to India.

There are guys who manage to prosper - the "networkers" and the "salesmen". Those are the guys that would have prospered whether working as an attorney or as a car salesman, but those guys have the ability that most law grads do not. For example, if I had to rely on networking and cold pitching in my daily life, I would have literally starved to death. If you're the kind of guy who can sell ice to the eskimos, well, you are a better man than I.

Maybe I read too much into their demeanors, but I know that if I was extremely unhappy in a profession, it would show on my face and in my lack of enthusiasm. These guys didn't show signs of that.

I tip my hat to them. I also knew a guy who made a living from producing shitty self financed direct-to-video movies. I respect and envy anyone like him.

Anyway, the fact remains that there are 30,000 new job openings a year, and 45,000 grads to compete for them. Which means 1/3 of graduates are S.O.L. Here's an article that goes into more detail: No more room at the bench - Los Angeles Times

Also, remember that most of the 30,000 that manage to find jobs are going to be from the top tier schools. So for example, 90% of Ivy League grads will end making a living being lawyers, while in lower ranked schools it might be 50% or worse.

I'm interested to know just how bad the non-Ivy Leaguers really have it. If they're making anywhere from 65k-150k, that might be "low income" relative to the Ivy Leaguers, but it's not chump change. 80-90% of the population aren't making that much. If it's more like 30-55k then, yeah, that would be rough after having gone through Lawe Skoole.

The salary distribution is very uneven.

So either you are making a lot, or you are making very little. And this chart is fairly optimistic - a lot of lawyers do not report their salaries due to unemployment or a sense of failure (more so than other professionals because in legal field it's all about status), and a large number of people quit law altogether after 5 years of graduation (yet they still have non-dischargeable student debt for their JD).

And before anyone goes on and says "well shit, that 62K average salary doesn't seem too bad", please consider that a typical JD graduate has 100K+ debt, plus 3 years of lost opportunities. And like I said, even still that 62K average is most likely a very optimistic number. Oh yeah, and keep in mind that a lot of attorneys put in 60+ hours/week, so their annual salaries do not accurately reflect per hour earnings of other professions who normally put in only 40 hours/week.

Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

As I have stated in my original post, I currently have a decent job (albeit most likely a very temporary one) that I have obtained due to very specific background and abilities. Meaning, 90%+ of people with exactly the same legal experience and law school pedigree such as mine would have been turned down if they applied. I cannot go into the exact specifics as to what those things are, because that would mean I would have to reveal more personal info that I care to, so just take my word for it.

But for years after graduation, yes, I have been in the latter part of the group to one degree or another. And if don't do some serious contingency planning, I am very likely to return to it.

When did they graduate law school? That plays a factor because it is getting worse and worse for the recent grads by the year. The older grads are able to survive better than the younger guys because they have an established base of experience and connections which they got when the market wasn't as horrendous, but nonetheless, the old guys are feeling the hurt too. There are new law schools being accredited every year, flooding new JDs to the market, yet the market remains stagnant at best - in fact, some of the lower end attorney work such as electronic discovery is currently being outsourced to India.

There are guys who manage to prosper - the "networkers" and the "salesmen". Those are the guys that would have prospered whether working as an attorney or as a car salesman, but those guys have the ability that most law grads do not. For example, if I had to rely on networking and cold pitching in my daily life, I would have literally starved to death. If you're the kind of guy who can sell ice to the eskimos, well, you are a better man than I.

I tip my hat to them. I also knew a guy who made a living from producing shitty self financed direct-to-video movies. I respect and envy anyone like him.

Anyway, the fact remains that there are 30,000 new job openings a year, and 45,000 grads to compete for them. Which means 1/3 of graduates are S.O.L. Here's an article that goes into more detail: No more room at the bench - Los Angeles Times

Also, remember that most of the 30,000 that manage to find jobs are going to be from the top tier schools. So for example, 90% of Ivy League grads will end making a living being lawyers, while in lower ranked schools it might be 50% or worse.

The salary distribution is very uneven.

So either you are making a lot, or you are making very little. And this chart is fairly optimistic - a lot of lawyers do not report their salaries due to unemployment or a sense of failure (more so than other professionals because in legal field it's all about status), and a large number of people quit law altogether after 5 years of graduation (yet they still have non-dischargeable student debt for their JD).

And before anyone goes on and says "well shit, that 62K average salary doesn't seem too bad", please consider that a typical JD graduate has 100K+ debt, plus 3 years of lost opportunities. And like I said, even still that 62K average is most likely a very optimistic number. Oh yeah, and keep in mind that a lot of attorneys put in 60+ hours/week, so their annual salaries do not accurately reflect per hour earnings of other professions who normally put in only 40 hours/week.

I would have never guessed that there would be that large of a chunk of lawyers making under 60k. I guess the correct "strategy" for people going into Law School needs to be, "I know for a fact that I want to do this for the rest of my career. I will work hard and after 10, 15, 20 years of experience and networking, I'll be in the 6-figure range and all the hard work will have paid off - which seems to be the natural course of most careers anyways (increasing salary as time goes on). Of course, you'd want to know that you're going to enjoy the work as well. Thanks for the data, by the way.

NTJ's are the only types that have ever made me feel emo.
ENP's are the only types that have ever made me feel like a sensor.

There are two great days in a person's life - the day we are born and the day we discover why. --William Barclay

I would have never guessed that there would be that large of a chunk of lawyers making under 60k. I guess the correct "strategy" for people going into Law School needs to be, "I know for a fact that I want to do this for the rest of my career. I will work hard and after 10, 15, 20 years of experience and networking, I'll be in the 6-figure range and all the hard work will have paid off - which seems to be the natural course of most careers anyways (increasing salary as time goes on). Of course, you'd want to know that you're going to enjoy the work as well. Thanks for the data, by the way.

The sad part of this whole story is that hard work isn't enough. When there are 45,000 people and 30,000 jobs, and everyone works hard, there will still be 15,000 unemployed people. And I don't think I've ever met a single person who has graduated law school and thought that they would be able to coast through it. People enroll in law school expecting to work hard. A great majority of them either majored in something useless like political science, art history, underwater basketweaving, etc, or/and they are desperate corporate whores who've hit glass ceiling and see law school as their salvation. Those people don't just "want" to be in law school - they view being in law school as "no other option" - which means they will work that much harder because there is no alternative. It's a gladiatorial battle for scraps that may or may not be there upon graduation.

The data I provided you with took me literally less than 5 minutes to look up. If you do some actual research (aside from relying on bullshit stats that law schools themselves provide), you'll be aghast.

What drives the JD-diploma-mill business is the "common knowledge" that the surest way to make money is to become an attorney. And here's a bit of financial wisdom - if EVERYBODY knows a sure way to make money is to do X, that means there is no more money left to be made in X (see: every financial bubble in history)

Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.